"Ishto k'gufo, ba'al k'ishto", one's wife is like one's own self; a husband is as one with his wife. Jewish thought viewed a husband and wife as one unit. Flowing from this assumption is the notion that all monies earned by the family would be pooled into one bank account. It was the husband's obligation to provide for the family, at a level on par with the living standard the wife was accustomed to in her home--unless the husband came from a wealthier family than his wife, in which case he was to maintain this higher standard of living for the family: "She rises with him, but does not go down with him" (Ketuvot 48a).
This holds true whether or not the wife decides to work--a decision left to her discretion--but if she so chooses to work, it was expected that her earnings would be included in the family bank account. Whether monies earned by a single women should also join the "family pool" upon marriage is subject to debate and discussion, and is a topic we hope to revisit when we study masechet Ketubot. But all agree that before a woman is married, she may do with her money as she pleases.
"Shomeret yavam, a women awaiting yibum, who acquired property, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that she may sell them [or] give them away" (Yevamot 38a). If not for this ruling, one might have thought that the automatic bond created between the shomeret yavam and her brother-in-law may have designated any windfalls she receives to be included, once yibum occurs, in the family monetary pool. Yet while this woman is legally bound to her brother-in-law--a bond that will be affirmed and strengthened upon yibum, or broken due to chalitzah--in regards to her economic status she is free to do as she pleases. Once married, economic decisions had to be made in conjunction with her husband[1].
At the same time, once yibum is done and the couple married, the husband is responsible to support his sister-in-law turned wife[2]. At the same time, "he merits the possession of his [deceased] brother's assets" (Yevamot 40a) and according to many, upon the death of his father, he would receive a double inheritance--both his share and that of his deceased brother.
And if he does chalitzah? "One who performs chalitzah with his sister-in-law is like any of the other brothers regarding inheritance". The Gemara gives two (contradictory) explanations on the need for this ruling of the Mishnah.
On the one hand, one might have thought that just as one who does yibum inherits his brother's assets, such would be the case for one who does chalitzah as well, as it is "in place of yibum". This view resonates according to those views that chalitzah takes precedence over yibum. On the other hand, one might have thought that one who does chalitzah instead of yibum is to be "punished" for not carrying on his brother's legacy, a policy that accords with the view that yibum is to take precedence.
Yet whether yibum or chalitzah is to take precedence in theory (see here) has no economic bearing after the fact. One who does chalitzah is treated like any of the other brothers, who inherit the deceased brother's assets equally[3].
[1] With the husband the (only) one responsible to provide for the family, he was responsible for the family budget, which included, for example, buying his wife a new dress three times a year (Pesachim 109a). Interestingly, the wife could "opt-out" of the system (Ketubot 58b) and fully support herself with her own earnings, allowing her to keep a separate bank account free of any influence from her husband. While some may prefer a more "egalitarian approach" to family finances, I find this Talmudic discussion most fascinating, relevant, and ahead of its time. Our Rabbis grappled with what research has shown over and over again as the primary source of marital discord.
[2] Presumably, this would include any children the woman may have had from a previous marriage. The applicability of yibum is dependent on whether the husband had children, and any children he may be raising with his wife do not free her from yibum or chalitzah.
[3] If the father was still alive, he would inherit his son's assets, and only upon his death would the brothers inherit.
